RE: [PATCH v3 3/6] dt-bindings: mfd: da9062: add regulator voltage selection documentation

[Adam Thomson]

On 17 December 2019 12:31, Marco Felsch wrote:

> On 19-12-17 09:53, Adam Thomson wrote:
> > On 17 December 2019 09:01, Marco Felsch wrote:
> >
> > > > > The enabel control signal is always available, please check [1] table
> > > > > 63. There is a mux in front of the enable pin so:
> > > > >
> > > > >              +-------------
> > > > >  Seq. |\     |   Regulator
> > > > >  GPI1 | \    |
> > > > >  GPI2 | | -- > Enable
> > > > >  GPI3 | /    |
> > > > >       |/     .
> > > > >              .
> > > > >              .
> > > > >
> > > > > Adam please correct me if this is wrong.
> > > >
> > > > Yes the register can always be configured regardless of the associated pin
> > > > configuration, but if say GPIO1 was configured as a GPO but a regulator was
> > > > configured to use GPIO1 as its GPI control mechanism, the output signal
> from
> > > > GPIO1 would be ignored, the sequencer control would not have any effect
> and
> > > > you're simply left with manual I2C control. Really we shouldn't be getting
> into
> > > > that situation though. If a GPIO is to be used as a regulator control signal
> > > > then it should be marked as such and I don't think we should be able to use
> that
> > > > pin for anything other than regulator control.
> > >
> > > I see, so we have to guarantee that the requested gpio is configured as
> > > input. This can be done by:
> >
> > This is one of the reasons I thought this was better suited to being done in the
> > pinctrl/pinmux side. If you configure the GPIO as for regulator control then
> > the code can automatically configure the GPIO for input. That doesn't then
> need
> > to be in the regulator driver.
> 
> I still don't prefer that way.. pls check my arguments I already made
> and I don't wanna repeat it again.

Yes, I read your arguments but still can't agree :)